🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”